MAHANT LALITA SHARANJI versus DEOKI DEVI & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 1 S.C.R. 468 · Decided: 16-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
468
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
MAHANT LALITA SHARANJI
v.
DEOKI DEVI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 394 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 – ss. 9(2), 11-A –
Consolidation proceedings – Appellant-mahant of a temple, owner
of plot bearing no. 212/2 and respondent owner of land bearing
no. 319 – Consolidation proceedings – Appellant allotted portion
of plot no. 212/2, 215 and 216 – Portion of plot no. 212/2 adjoining
the road was treated as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha –
One P allotted a very small portion of Plot No. 212/2 – Land reserved
as bachat land for use by the Gaon Sabha and the land allotted to
P adjoined the main road – Respondent also allotted a portion of
Plot No. 215 – Appellant did not challenge the allotment of front
portion of land as bachat land to be used by the Gaon Sabha or the
allotment of land to P – One B, challenged the allotment of land in
favour of respondent – Settlement Officer amended the allotment –
Respondent was allotted land in plot 212/2 adjoining the main road
– Bachat land was changed from one plot to another – Share of
appellant also changed – Challenge to, by the appellant – High
Court held that the appellant had no right to challenge the order of
the Settlement Officer – Held: It is clear that the appellant would
have had access to the road when the land was allotted to the Gaon
Sabha as bachat land – They could have also used the land and his
access to the road would not have been affected, had that portion
of the land been not allotted to respondent – This order virtually
nullified the earlier order and, thus, the appellant was well within
his rights to challenge the order passed by the Settlement Officer in
the appeal filed by B – If an order adversely affects any party, he
has a right to challenge it – Appellant was not a party to the appeal
filed by B, but by the said order passed by the Settlement Officer,
Consolidation, the appellant was virtually denied access to the road
– Thus, the Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in
entertaining the revision filed by the appellant and making re-
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 468
468
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
469
allotments – High Court erred in holding that the appellant had no
right to challenge the order of the Settlement Officer because he
had not challenged the original order in original proceedings
whereby the front portion of the land was treated as bachat land –
Later allotment of land to respondent and shifting of the bachat
land gave rise to fresh cause of action to the appellant – Thus, the
order of the High Court is set aside and the order passed by the
Deputy Director, Consolidation is restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 provides that any person to whom notice has
been sent under Section 9(1) has to file objections before the
Assistant Consolidation Officer within a period of 21 days from
the date of receipt of the notice. Section 11 A provides that no
question in respect of claims to land etc. relating to a consolidation
area which might or ought to have been raised under Section
9(2) and were not raised at that stage, can be permitted to be
raised or heard at subsequent stage of consolidation proceedings.
The purpose of these two provisions is to ensure that when a
draft scheme is prepared or notice of allotment of land is issued,
then if a person has any objection to the same, he must file his
objection at that stage and if he does not file the same, he cannot
be permitted to raise these objections at a later stage. [Para
8][473-D-E]
1.2 Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the
instant case, the appellant had not objected to grant of a very
small portion of land to ‘P’ and allotment of the front portion of
the land as bachat land to be used by the Gaon Sabha. In this
case, ‘B’, owner of Plot No. 215 and Plot No.216, filed appeal.
Though this appeal was limited to challenging the allotment made
to ‘D’, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, while allowing the
appeal, virtually nullified the original consolidation order and took
away the land allotted to the appellant in Plot No. 215 and Plot
No. 216 and re-allotted him his land in Plot No. 212/2, allotted
land to the Gaon Sabha in Plot No. 216 and allotted the front
portion of the land in Plot No. 212/2 to ‘P’ and ‘D’. It is clear from
the map that the appellant would have had access to the road
wh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.